Affirmative Action

Name
Professor
Title
Date
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is the policies aimed at giving the underrepresented minority groups opportunities in the society. These opportunities may be in universities, colleges or careers. Individual’s religion, sex, race, national origin, or color are recognized by the government or business so as to upsurge the opportunities given to the part of society that is underrepresented. The affirmative action is often designed to raise the sum of persons from definite groups within institutions, businesses and other parts of humanity where they have low representation historically. It is actually considered as a method of countering past discrimination against a certain group. In the 1960s, affirmative action arose to prominence in the United States as a means to encourage equal opportunities through the numerous groups in society. It was established to enforce the 1964 civil rights act, which pursued to eliminate discrimination. In the contemporary world, there are both staunch critics and strong supporters of affirmative action.
The Affirmative action is actually often controversial and ever-changing means for increasing educational opportunities. The 1964 civil rights act made it unlawful to discriminate against college applicants and students on the foundation of gender or race, but proving partiality in college admissions is rather difficult. As with discernment in the employment process, excluded applicants generally aren’t privy to the aspects of the verdicts made by the personnel of admissions.

Due to this reason, numerous schools embraced affirmative action rules to help guarantee greater diversity (Wasson 4). Approaches vary, but then affirmative action intends to provide special consideration to racial minorities and women. While opponents frequently call it reverse discrimination, this approach was aimed at leveling the playing ground for those people who disproportionately have been disallowed by college admissions. A combination of state and federal laws arrays the considerations for how colleges and schools adopt affirmative action guidelines, which endure being altered and challenged in the court of law. A significant number of law colleges consider race as one factor amongst many in arriving at admissions decisions.
There have been cases in the courts concerning affirmative action in law school admissions. Some cases against affirmative action and others for it. Sandra Day O’Connor is one of the judges who is well known for strongly supporting affirmative action policies. On the other hand, Clarence Thomas also features in the issues of affirmative action, but he is largely against it (Kearney 17). However, both judges have some similarities as well. Both Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor have served as Supreme Court Justices. Sandra Day O’Connor is a Republican whose origin is Arizona. In 1981, she was appointed by the president Ronald Reagan to the supreme court of United States. Before her appointment, she had been a judge in Arizona State for two years. She worked as an associate justice until 2006. Likewise, Clarence Thomas is a Republican who comes from Georgia. In 1991, he was appointed by the president George Bush to the Supreme Court of United States. Before his appointment, Clarence Thomas worked as a judge in the Court of appeal for one year. He has served as an associate justice of Supreme Court for twenty-six years.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas heard and decided on the Michigan Affirmative action case. The case was about the law school admissions. Sandra Day O’Connor was among the justices who voted in favor of the affirmative action policies while Clarence Thomas voted against it and wrote a dissenting opinion. According to Thomas, affirmative action leads to racial discernment and is in all forms wrong as slavery or segregation. He argues that affirmative action has stigmatizing effects that affect students when they are searching for a job. In his dissent opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas rejects the affirmative action policy at Michigan’s law school. He rejects and rehearses the familiar conventional view that in the nonexistence of racial discernment in admissions there could be a factual meritocracy. On the other hand, Sandra Day O’Connor supported the affirmative action. He was the ultimate deciding vote on the Michigan case. She joined her open-minded colleagues to sustain the utilization of race in college admissions and hence establishing an imperative new precedent. Sandra Day O’Connor argued that the affirmative action is needed in the United States of America though he hoped that the days of such an approach could be numbered (Parker 19). In her opinion, she says that in 25 years after making that decision, the racial preferences in university admission would no longer be crucial to further such interests.
Justice Thomas states that the majority opinion isn’t constitutional, but an argument that is very much in harmony with the periods and that is conceptually illogical on its own terms. On the other hand Sandra Day O’Connor protects the court’s decision as constitutional arguing that policy is meant to give minorities opportunities in the law school; consequently ensuring diversity and therefore that is enough to justify the utilization of race in admissions. Sandra Day O’Connor speaks on the timeless linguistic of principle. Her respect to the mandates from the military and industry shows, to the real-life consequences of the decisions she makes. On the other hand, Justice Thomas is in search of timeless tackles to actually deal with the disorder of the conditions time throw up. Therefore, in their judgment, Sandra Day O’Connor views affirmative action as a means to obtained and maintained diversity in schools and also in the workplace. According to her, affirmative action would aid develop tolerant communities since it exposes persons to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own. On the other hand, Thomas states that the historical discrimination against definite minority groups doesn’t justify the present discernment against non-minorities (Kearney 22). According to him, all persons are equivalent under the regulations of the United States and must be handled accordingly.
In conclusion, I support the argument of Thomas. I believe, contrary to Sandra Day O’Connor, affirmative action rescinds the notion of meritocracy and in its place puts race as the central factor in hiring and admissions procedures. Students who obtain position via the affirmative action regularly aren’t fully prepared for the task. This is both bad for the college and the students or workers since it lowers self-esteem. It reinforces racism and stereotype. When individuals are offered position purely due to affirmative action, the notion that all persons of that race should be stupid is perpetuated. Also, it assumes that all persons of the similar skin color come from the inferior class, and consequently need help. Simply having persons of different ethnicities or races in the university or workplace doesn’t necessarily indicate a diversity of views. Individuals with the similar skin color aren’t necessarily alike in culture or opinion. Therefore, I believe that using affirmative action in admissions does much harm than good. Thus, I support Clarence Thomas argument and views concerning affirmative action.
Works Cited
Kearney, Mary K. “Justice Thomas in Grutter v. Bollinger: Can passion play a Role in a Jurist’s reasoning?” St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository | St. John’s University School of Law Research, Feb. 2012, scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=lawreview. Accessed 14 Jan. 2018.
Parker, Wendy. “The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger: Affirmative Action Wins.” Wake Forest Student, Faculty and Staff Web Pages, 2005, users.wfu.edu/mcclanas/bookchapter.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan. 2018.
Wasson, Gabriel P. “Affirmative Action: Equality or Reverse Discrimination?” DigitalCommons@Liberty University | Liberty University Research, 2004, digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=honors. Accessed 14 Jan. 2018.